Why? Tragedy in Newtown

The personal tragedy must be unbearable. For those of us who have never been through a horrific experience as the families of those murdered in Newtown, Connecticut are going though, it is impossible to imagine. Thoughts and prayers first go towards them.

What could possibly have gone through the mind of a madman who would do something like this is incomprehensible. Intentionally taking the life of another human being is hard to imagine, killing 20 kindergartners is beyond belief. Everybody seems to be asking, why?

The thoughts of many may go something like this; certainly, if there was a God he would've stopped 20 year old Adam Lanza before he committed one of the most horrific crimes we will hear of in our lifetimes. He who is mindful of a sparrow that falls from the sky would cause the perpetrator to crash his car on the way to this murder spree, his guns to jam, or his demented mind to change before committing this un-godly act. Certainly a loving God could do that and perhaps we are unaware of the times that He does. There are no headlines when God intervenes. 

To understand why tragedies happen in life, you must first understand agency. This requires a "big picture" perspective. Why do people do bad things to others on incomprehensible levels? Agency. Other than life itself, the greatest gift we have from God is the agency to choose what we do with that life. With our agency we must accept that others have the freedom to make their own choices. Most often we experience the richness of life from those around us who enliven our experience. We grow, we learn, we love, and we live thanks to those around us who lift us up. With that, we must also except that same agency will be abused for evil.

This may be of little, or no comfort to those who lost a loved one today---but to answer the question of why, we have to look at the entire human experience, a hard thing to do when the tragedy is so horrific and so personal.

I'm not saying we sit back and allow ourselves to be victimized by others because they have agency, quite the opposite, we do everything possible to protect ourselves and others from evil. The same agency that allows tragedy must be used for our safety, how best to do that will be debated forever. 

Thomas Jefferson once described the "sea of liberty" as "tempestuous." He understood the negative side of Liberty. Tonight we are seeing the tempest 24/7 on cable TV. 

For those of us watching Newtown from a distance we are praying for those who are hurting and thanking God for our family and loved ones. We must also understand the principle of agency and how it is most often used for greatness, but it is sometimes horribly misused for tragedy. Today, if we could, we may be tempted to want a life where we are sheltered by a Garden of Eden. Instead, live in an imperfect world of great good, and occasionally, horrific evil. Agency, as a gift from He who loves us most, makes both possible. We cannot have one without the other. 

Benghazi Simplified for The Media

I hear my friends in the media strain over questions about Benghazi and I wonder why. There are simple answers here.

Of course, what should be mentioned first is that most of the Activist Old Media have stopped covering the story. It's just too personally painful for them to report on Dear Leader clearly lying to the American people, and they don't want Chris Matthews to think they're racist, so it's best they just ignore. If they say it didn't happen through their non-reporting, then I guess it just didn't happen and those 4 families who lost husbands, sons, fathers and brothers can just figure it out on their own. Way to look out for the "little guys," there, media. I guess "truth to power" only counts when a Republican is in power.

This is actually pretty easy to figure out. I knew the day after the terrorist attack in Benghazi what had happened and how the administration and its media were spinning the facts. I wrote about it on my blog. September 12, The Day After. I had no inside sources, no secret sauce, no deep throat. I just figured it out on my own. If I knew what happened in Benghazi while sitting in my pajamas in Las Vegas, then they knew in Washington DC. Don't angst over what Obama knew and when he knew it, he knew right away. His embassy in Egypt said so (he appointed everybody there) and it sounded good to him, so he applied it to Libya. A week later, things were even more clear and I explained it again. This was my column September 19, a week before Susan Rice went on TV. My stories were accurate then, and they have stood the test of time. Still, we have media members, and the administration saying they don't know what happened. To this day they are feigning foolishness. They're trying to cook up a new story that their Activist Old Media will suck on. And they will.

Barack Obama lied to the American people about Benghazi and he knew he was lying. All Rice did was give the same story that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Jay Carney had given before her. Sure, the focus is now on Rice to take the heat off of Dear Leader, but we know where this talking point first game from. Barack Hussein Obama. This should not be hard for anybody to figure out. It was his talking point that the administration and its media have parroted.

So, why did Obama lie and blame a video for an obviously planned terrorist attack? That answer is just as easy to come up with. He lied because he does not want to believe there are terrorists in the world, not in the middle east, and not in the middle of an election. He has said this many times. Obama believes what Reverend Wright said when he told us, "America's chickens have come home to roost." You don't need a dog ears to figure this whistle out.

We have a President of the United States of America who refuses to accept the fact that 30 years ago Muslim extremists declared jihad on the free world. His idea of "change" and "forward" is for us all to believe that we caused terrorism to exist through our Imperialism, The Crusades, our oppression of people a world away, and McDonald's. Make no doubt, he believes that.

Obama also talks often about bringing the "killers to justice." Who cares about that? You bring car thieves and bank robbers to justice. Terrorists must be stopped before they act, but that requires you acknowledge they exist. Security should've been upgraded at the Consulate in Libya before the attack. Chris Stevens asked for it. Often. But you must first believe there are terrorists and they are evil before you upgrade security. That is the danger that should scare us all. Obama didn't/doesn't see that.

Obama also declared al Qaeda "dead," before Benghazi so he was worried about the inconsistency of his statements not jiving with reality during the presidential campaign.  If you blame the video that was spawned from Evil America and its clearly misguided First Amendment, how could you blame al Qaeda? I would also ask, why would Obama worry? Who was going to ask him about the inconsistency? Candy Crowley?

There will be Congressional Hearings about Benghazi, media angst, questions about who approved the talking points, straining over gnats and swallowing camels (apologies to my Muslim friends for the Biblical reference--I assure you, I was not around during The Crusades.) There is nothing about Benghazi that is tough to figure out. I've done it. Did it long ago. In my pajamas.

Follow Ron Futrell on Twitter @RonFutrell

Ron Futrell Interview with Andrew Breitbart, 2011

My interview with Andrew Breitbart, August 15, 2011---7 months before his death.

CLICK HERE to hear the interview.

Lincoln: Movie Review, via Today's Politics

One of the greatest stories in American history comes to life on the big screen courtesy director Steven Spielberg.

Spielberg captures the politics and the personalities of the moments surrounding the passing of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution. To most Americans, this was probably a moment not thought of much, but without the 13th and 14th amendments, our nation, and the world, would be much different.

This was a political battle the likes of which we have rarely seen. The bloodiest war in American history was drawing to a close. The nation had long since grown weary of the brutality. Abraham Lincoln had just been elected to his second term, and he knew that if the loss of 700,000 lives was to mean anything, the issue of slavery would have to be dealt with. Time was running out.

Spielberg makes two political points very clear with this movie. First, Republicans were united behind Lincoln to put an end to the horror of slavery once and for all. Democrats were racist and pro-slavery and they fought the amendment every step of the way. This point was not made in the movie, but it should be noted, the Republican Party was founded to fight slavery.

Second, politics is messy business.  If the President wants something to happen, he uses his power to make it happen by working with members of both parties, and if he has to, he will knock some heads around. Lincoln also had no problem buying votes from Democrats to get what he wanted. This issue was that big to him, and to a nation severely divided.

Some may try to compare what Lincoln did with the 13th amendment to what Barack Obama has done with ObamaCare. They would be foolish to make that comparison. Like Lincoln, Obama wanted badly to get the legislation passed, but other than that...

Democrats should've tried to make ObamaCare constitutional by passing it as the 28th amendment. They did not because they knew it had no chance of passing. Like Lincoln, Obama and Harry Reid bought votes, but they had to buy the votes of fellow Democrats. Then knew no Republicans would vote for this monstrosity of a bill, so they played total partisan politics and used our tax dollars to bribe fellow Democrats to vote for ObamaCare.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the 13th amendment and ObamaCare is that one increases Liberty, the other decreases it, other than that...

Few who watch this movie will not learn something they did not know about history. The timing of Congress ratifying the 13th amendment, the end of the Civil War, and the death of Lincoln speaks to the divine nature of what Lincoln was doing. Or, call it fate if you wish---Lincoln felt his cause was divine and that he had to get the amendment passed quickly.

Another point that makes this movie relevant to politics in our day; Democrats are still working to enslave minorities. Black scholars have argued that the government entitlements have decimated the black family. Only the most leftist among us would argue otherwise. In modern history it began with Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson's so-called "war on poverty." 150 years ago Democrats enslaved blacks because they were racist, today they do it because they want the power minority votes will bring. Government handouts given to this degree can only enslave.

Lincoln is a must see because of its deft display of history---and for what we can learn today.

Follow Ron Futrell on twitter @RonFutrell

ABC Sets Up Obama Victory Template

Here it is---ABC making sure Barack Obama knows how he can win election and save the nation from disaster, both at the same time---and they will be there to help.

You may have heard there's this storm on the east coast, Sandy. A "Mega Super Storm" is what ABC News has called it. Complete with disaster music, new motion graphics and the Extreme Weather Team on the ground. Few storms live up to the media hype and let's hope this one follows that predictable track.

This column is not about the seriousness of the storm, but about ABC and the politics of disaster and how the network is both advising the president, and creating his template for success.

Witness this set-up discussion Sunday morning between Dan Harris and George Stephanopoulos.

Dan (liberal question asker): "If you're the president, how do you manage campaigning, because his job is truly on the line here, with governing and managing perhaps a large disaster?"

George (Clinton's boy): "You show you're in touch and that's why the president has already put out photos of him talking to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and he's also returning to the White House tomorrow afternoon already cancelling some events. The biggest problem for the president now, if he makes any mishandling of this storm it could affect the final days of this race more than any other factor."

Interpreted, what they're saying is: "Dear Leader, get back to the White House so that we can show everybody how brilliant you are and how you have saved America from this disaster. You just do what we say, we will take care of the rest."

Of course, this is all a set-up and is easily manipulated. You find out how effective true leaders are by how they react when they are outside the glare of the spotlight.

We have the perfect example, and ABC has virtually ignored it.

Anybody at ABC heard of the terrorist attack on Benghazi? Oh ya, you've done the story alright (a :15 reader by the anchor in the B-block,) but have you bothered to connect this directly to the White House as an example of how Barack Obama is as a leader? No, you have not.

Obama watched  for hours on video as Americans were attacked and killed at a US Consulate. He could've sent in help and did not. Then he knowingly lied about the cause of the terrorist attack. He sent others to lie about the terrorist attack, then he took off on Air Force One to Las Vegas for a campaign event.

That's what he did and you know that's what he did, but you refuse to tell that story.

Instead, you now approach your viewers with a template that will be used by you to try to save his failed presidency in the final days of this election.

How do you put on your make-up and walk on set with a clear conscience and try to tell your viewers that you are "looking out for them?"

Besides, if Benghazi has taught us one thing, if the president does "mishandle this storm," the Activist Old Media won't report it.

Follow Ron Futrell on twitter @RonFutrell

The White House Lied About Benghazi

One of the favorite questions the media asked during the Watergate Era was, "What did Nixon know, and when did he know it?" Once the media found out what Richard Nixon knew and when he knew it, his presidency was over and careers in journalism were made.

We now know what Barack Obama knew and when he knew it about the Benghazi terrorist attacks, and the media sits in relative silence.

Oh, there are stories breaking every day on this, but overall, the media refuses to connect the dots and put this story right where it belongs---on the desk in the Oval Office of Barack Obama.

Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice lied by calling the terrorist attack in Benghazi a "spontaneous attack" fueled by a movie, and more importantly, they knew they were lying at the time. Reuters now has e-mails showing the White House knew this was a coordinated terrorist attack hours after it began, still, the administration lied to America about it. I wrote about this story a week after it happened, and I knew the administration was lying then, and I said so. If I knew, they knew. Oh wait, I wrote a column the day after the attack exposing the lies. Read it here.

Oh, Good Morning America mentioned the e-mails, as other media have, but they still refuse to tie this lie directly to their Dear Leader. CBS Radio News failed to mention this story during their top of the hour newscast at 12 noon Eastern time today. But, they found time to work in a story about identity theft at a few Barnes and Noble stores. CBS Evening News first exposed the damaging e-mails, but this is just the tip of the story. Real "junk yard dog" reporters will latch on to this story and not let go until they destroy those responsible. That's what the media does---or is supposed to do.

This story needs to be told with the Obama Lie front and center. He also failed to react and send troops to save the lives of those being murdered by terrorists. Tell me both of those issues don't deserve more attention than they are currently being given.

I'm guessing the folks at the networks have the video of Obama blaming that stupid video that nobody has seen. Check the video files---go back to the last month. In case they have burned that video of Obama's statements, I found this on YouTube.  Obama blaming the video for the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Match it up with the e-mails that have now been uncovered and whaddya know---you have one hell of a story about known lies at the highest level of government. Maybe the Networks are waiting for the Aaron Sorkin version to come out on HBO before they do anything.

Networks and newspapers are trying to excuse themselves on this story by giving it cursory mention. This is not a :15 second "reader" or "voice-over" type story. This is an hour-long prime-time special type story. You can hear them in newsrooms now, "Oh ya, we did that story at the end of the B-block at 4:30. We covered it!"

Beginning November 7th the investigation will go into full gear and the media will expose these known lies and they will ask why action wasn't take at the time to save the lives of the 4 Americans brutally killed by terrorists in Benghazi. At that time journalists will start thinking about the Emmy's and Peabody's on the table for the taking.

Until then, they have an election to win.

Follow Ron Futrell on twitter @RonFutrell

Andrew Sullivan: Off The Deep End

The Chris Matthews Show is always good for entertainment. A handful of libs sitting around a small table chatting about how best they can get Dear Leader elected. 

Once a week is about all of this anybody can take.

Andrew Sullivan was one of the five (counting Chris) lib panelists this week talking about Barack Obama's debate failure, why it happened, and how he needs to fix it. His quote was one for the ages.

"I think that they (bad evil Republicans) got into his (Obama's) head with all this racist stuff before the first debate, you know, the Hannity stuff, 'look there's a black guy running for office,' like two days before, I think he, he, he (has) repression of his own anger. 

"He (Obama) should be angry that these people (Romney, Ryan, and more bad, evil Republicans)  have the gall to talk to him about the deficit and the gall to talk to him about foreign policy after their record."

So, lets see here, so much to dissect with this one statement. Sean Hannity apparently just figured out two days before the recent Presidential Debate that Obama was black and he launched a racist attack at Obama (who apparently watches Hannity) and that got into his head to the point that it messed him up during the debate. That makes perfect sense. Why not just blame the altitude, Andrew? 

The second half of the quote is even better. Sullivan calls himself a "journalist" but he doesn't want anybody attacking Dear Leader. Talking "truth to power" is now, "people have the gall to talk to him."

Let's see here. Obama's deficits are 5 times greater that George W. Bush's and Sullivan does not want Obama to be questioned about that. Obama's foreign policy is filled with lies (lies that the administration knew they were making at the time,) the middle east is falling apart, and Sullivan doesn't want anybody to question Obama about that. 

While we're at it, the bigger question here; what are Romney's deficits and foreign policy failures? He has none. He has never been president. Sullivan thinks Romney is George W. Bush. Please get some new glasses, Andy. 

Which speaks to the essence of the Obama Campaign 2012. Andrew Sullivan exposed it. Obama is running on Bill Clinton's record and attacking George W. Bush. It's all he's got.

Forward. 

Follow Ron Futrell on Twitter @RonFutrell